Contraption

I didn’t bother unhooking her bra. I never do anymore. I pulled it off her like a t-shirt. As I’m squeezing her boobs (and taking a mental note of her remaining “years-to-sag” based on a complicated formula I devised involving underside crease length, armpit spillover when prone, and depth of press), I glance over at her bedside table and notice an unusual object illuminated by the thrift shop lamp. It was a huge, purple vibrator — the luxury model, by the looks of it — with ridges and nubs and hooks and multiple arms sticking out from it, like a saguaro cactus.

I’m pretty sure there was even a scrolling LED screen. It sat there nonchalantly like a potted plant, or a paperweight. Wow, this is embarrassing, I thought. She forgot to put it away. It was so large and ridiculous that I had to interrupt our foreplay to ask her about it.

“Um, that’s quite a contraption you have over there. Just… laying out.”

“Oh yeah, that’s my little toy.” She didn’t sound embarrassed. “I use it every Sunday to masturbate. I can cum ten times with that baby.”

“Ten times? Straight through, or spread out over the day?”

“Like, within an hour or so.”

“Yeah. Impressive.” I tried to figure why her naughty “secret” wasn’t more titillating to me. Back when I was 18 this sort of discovery would have been exciting. Oh, yeah, I would have thought, This chick is kinky! She’s gonna do all sorts of crazy shit in bed! Now that I’m older and more discerning of women I sleep with, a giant purple saguaro vibrator staring at me from across the room doesn’t make me more turned-on by the woman who uses it. In fact, just the opposite. I lower my estimation of her as a worthy girl in whom I would be happy to take out on creative, exciting dates. Ladies, this is what a man thinks of you when he notices your purple saguaro and you don’t seem fazed by him discovering it:

Now 1 – 3 aren’t problems if the girl possesses reasonable degrees of those urges, or if you’re just looking for an uncomplicated fling. You don’t want to hitch your weenie wagon to a frigid ice queen. Number 4 is a flashing red light that she is a cheating whore at heart. Any girl who can’t be bothered to take the two seconds worth of effort to hide her absurd sex toys when a man comes over is a girl who won’t think twice about cheating on you. Even if most girls aren’t delicate, precious chaste creatures, you at least want the girl you are dating to pretend like she is and acknowledge your opinion of her matters — and one thing that matters very much to guys, even if they won’t admit it to the girl’s face, is that the girl he is with isn’t the town orifice. Men want their women, at a bare minimum, to take token stabs at modesty. It’s endearing to us and suggests you will be worth keeping around. We don’t want women to embrace their sluttiness as if it were a postmodern badge of honor. A good woman understands this and heeds a man’s romantic sensibilities.

The trick for men is finding a balance in women between unrepressed sexuality and faithful frigidity. Too much of the former = cumguzzling slut. Too much of the latter = blue balls. A proudly displayed purple saguaro says “I’m a slut, and you’ll like it.”

I’ve found that the more power I acquire over women, the pickier I’m becoming. I won’t call back a girl who has a purple saguaro on her nightstand. This choosiness has strengthened my character. I’m a better man for it.

Definitely threatened by a woman who enjoys sex. Even if, apparently she is just enjoying sex with herself, and not other men. The mere notion that she may enjoy orgasming (even solo) is enough to put her on the slut list. Hope you enjoy your blue balls sir.

and the tell-tail signs that you are a manwhore lead her to the same conclusions of you.

i’ve explained this to you before, anony, but your blocklike skull has trouble allowing knowledge to penetrate. men who have bedded a lot of women are *more* attractive to women, not less, because of the nature of women’s desire. but women who have bedded a lot of men are not so attractive to men because men value a woman’s chastity and beauty, not her ability to easily get laid. this double standard for proof of desirability exists as a function of darwinian programming that men and women possess, and isn’t going away any time soon, no matter how much you bleat ineffectually.

Why should a girl feel ashamed about masturbating? Most of the other guys I know don’t feel much shame about it, feeling like its a daily requirement. I think someone feels inadequate about their ability to please a woman. I don’t think a guy should get into a competition with a toy.

I think “ashamed” is the wrong word. The issue seems to have had is that it was laid out on the nightstand for all to see, and she didn’t care. It’s still a fairly personal object, and one that probably looks a bit silly, too; keeping it lying out is certainly a conversation starter, but not really something a girl with any modesty would do. It would be like keeping the Magnums out in a glass fishbowl. Nice touch, but unnecessary; she’ll figure it out eventually.

Maybe I’m biased though; most of the girls I dated haven’t even liked vibrators as much as the real deal; I remember I bought one for a girl I was dating before she went home for a few months (she was from Ukraine), and she barely used it then, and never did once she came back to the states. It was never even was an option in foreplay; it was dick or nothing.

Hrm, I don’t know all the details on the woman, but let me posit an alternative hypothesis. I’ve found that openness with toys/dildoes is an *anti-slut* marker, especially with the ‘Every Sunday’ description. Depending on intelligence and attitude, a good vibe can indicate that she uses it as a replacement for sketchy weekend hookups, and indicate a significant lower notch count. Also, novelty seeking? Really? For me, it’s more of a red flag if she doesn’t own a vibe.
For me, a non-solo kink would be more of a red flag, used light bondage gear for example.

There’s some interesting interplay between the genders going on here. I basically agree that a woman’s immodest, unconstrained embracing of her sexual nature can be a turn off. I too would be disappointed to find the dildotron2000 on a girl’s nightstand, just as I am not particularly happy to find out she went through a “wild phase” or that she has tried every variant of kinky sex imaginable – twice.

But you would never know this from talking to any girls I have dated/banged. I pretty routinely bring up the topic of sex and relationships pretty early on and go into my usual spiel on how monogamy is unnatural, and how much I respect girls who are empowered enough to just enjoy sex without the hang-ups of a serious relationship. Basically I convince them that I am not going to judge them as a slut, because I want them to feel comfortable doing something somewhat slutty i.e. sleeping with me on a 2nd date.

Very insightful comment by PA that the way a woman views a weak beta – undesirable sexually, perhaps useful for dinner/money – is similar to how a man views a slutty woman – undesirable for commitment of resources, perhaps useful sexually. Following this line of thought, my attempts to “trick” girls into revealing their promiscuity are analgous to women’s “shit tests” which attempt to trick men into revealing their weakness/lack of options.

One of my mistresses has one of those. I’m not sure if I’m supposed to take charge and use it on her or if that’s her own thing. She’s 25. Man I feel old, this was rare back in my day. Funny thing is that she was telling me about her boyfriend and he seems like a caveman “alpha” guy to me. I guess that doesn’t stop a chick from seeking more.

I have seen the same thing you’re speaking about as well. I’ve known girls who openly talk about what’s in their night stand but who are conservative when it comes to doing the real thing. At the same time, the biggest sluts I’ve had sex with refused to use dildos or vibrators because they liked the real thing so much more.

I think the sluts use of contraptions gets down to their motives for having sex. There are some slut who have sex in order to fill some emotional void while there are others who are addicted to the hormones released during orgasm. The latter are more likely to be open about their use of sex toys while the former will repress sex toy usage. In either case, they are sluts by definition.

Hmmm….there is also a possible second reason why she had the vibrator….i thought leaving the vibrator there for you was a shit test by her. To see how you *react/handle* the situation. And her telling you about cumming 10 times was another shit test: to set a standard for you to meet –a bar that you have to cross. Somehow, i suspect that the main function of the vibrator is a prop for inducing sexual insecurity in weak men–an attempt at getting the sexual upperhand over the male.

@Laura above:
You are OKay with being just #34, #76, or #101. To others of us, this thought is repulsive. It’s buzzkill. It’s insulting. Those men even smell gross. Others of us will have sex only on OUR terms, with certainty that we are appreciated and special.

Anony, I too only have sex on my own terms. What I was trying to convey is that I don’t use sex to reassure myself of my “special”ness. I don’t need it to validate me. That being said, I don’t think what number I am for a guy necessarily determines how much I’m appreciated by him.

The cactus dildo is also a turn-off because it’s a signal of aging, loneliness, and perhaps a sagging libido (like an iron lung signals poor health).

Think of when girls are at their peak horniness in high school, college, and just after — all they need is to lie back under the covers, lose themselves in the posters of Abercrombie models and rockstars that cover their walls, and let their little hands find their pussy.

Same for guys. When your libido is out of control, all you need is your hand and a mental picture of the cute girl in the front of history class — not a shot of Viagra, a penis pump, and one of those false vagina thingies.

How would women react if they saw this assortment of sex toys laying out on a guy’s nightstand?

I’ve been enjoying this blog for several months now. When I think about what the author looks like, I can’t get the image of Stewie Griffin from Family Guy out of my mind. Don’t be offended because Family Guy is right up there with your blog in terms of my favorite diversions. It’ll be interesting to see where your gifts take you as you continue to grow. Keep doing you….

I dont think its a big deal. It’s a phenomenon I too have observed within increasing frequency. I tend to agree with DF that it’s more of an indicator of not being a slut. A slut can get penis anytime she wants. All decent looking girls have that power but its the slut goes for it routinely. Thus a dildo presents an option for a girl to get off a lot without the slut label that will surely follow (whether this is right or wrong is another debate).

Anecdotally, I have am neighbors with a group house of 4 mid twenties girls. Only one of them is a slut. The other three are either in a serious relationship or are serial daters. ALL of them have dildos though. They purchased them at one of those all-girl dildo parties that have been occurring with more regularity recently. It’s kind of like a tupperware party, hosted at someone’s house: the chablis and mangotinis are flowing – except with giant rubber schlongs instead of casserole containers. I think it’s just part of the same female cultural movement that spawned Sex and the City. Anyway, I banged one of these neighbors girls for a while and she told me she used her dildo quite often (though she never left it out), and while using it on herself she would usually envision me going down on her which I thought was cool. however she would always prefer me to the dildo. It’s no substitute for the real deal.
Bottonline – I don’t agree it’s a 100% valid slut marker.

Men want their women, at a bare minimum, to take token stabs at modesty

I can accept this.

Many women use toys to keep their numbers low and to avoid looking for a quality booty call. Also many women can only “explode” when they use a toy or the lonely digit. The toy is a guaranteed good time a man is not. A woman knows her body in a way that most men will never figure out, that’s why so many of us use toys. Sometimes you want the fun without the human interaction. Sort of the same reason some men go to women of the night

@Sean- Maybe she just wants to have a good time.
*shrugs shoulders*
Sean let me elaborate. I say most people shouldn’t care more than 3-4 people think about them

1. Grand or great grand parents
2. The person who signs your checks or your *customers*
3. Your long-term boyfriend/girlfriend or spouse
4. Person who gives you a grade.

Alpha’s role like this^^^. It’s the reason they can marry/date a plain, big or much older woman and could care less what other men think ex Pierce Bronsnan, Denzel Washington, Mick Jagger(GF) & Hugh Jackman.

Giving your fellow human beings too much control over your every waking thought is simply living your life for other people. It’s like the time some guy in medical school was qualifying his specialty to some other guy here. SMH

DFOne of these days some girls gonna have a Barak Obama dildo on the night stand
You can find them in stores. They are made to look exactly like him. Don’t tell T & whiskey that thought.

Just as men have Tube8.com, Pornhub.com (tons of free porn, thousands of porn-scenes from real porn movies for no money at all), women have romance novels and multiple toys that fit all of their orifices.

Just think gents:

She can have a butt-plug up her ass………………….and a vibrator in her pussy that has a lid on it that vibrates on her clit, lubed up with a gel that tastes like strawberries that heats up with friction whose hood vibrates at four RPM per second.

You are goddamned right men and women don’t “need” each other to cum, and come a lot.

She can take phytoestrogens like soy isoflavones (look up the studies with female rats) and make her own sex drive increase……………………while you can drink brewed black tea and take horny goat weed and yohimbe and make your OWN sex drive increase. (BTW—-garlic supposedly UPS testosterone made by the testes slightly from what Ive been told, Im going to have to read up on that).

Dates become opportunities for women to feed their “attention” fixes and indulge their narcissicm just like women going out to bars on weeknights when they know they have to get up at 7:30 in the morning and have no intention of taking any guy home………………they just want to be looked at, bought drinks, and flirt. Some have a collection of sex-toys in their nightstand that vibrate harder, have more stamina, and are LARGER than any man on earth…………………and the lube heats up when they use it. They’ll be gushing to that and leaving a wet-spot on their high threadcount sheets while thinking about all the guys they coquettishly flirted with during the night, and perhaps even kissed.

By the weekend, when they might go home with a guy or even bring one back to their place, they WONT BE AS HORNY AS THEY SHOULD BE, and neither will he (because he has been wacking off to free porn for about 15 minutes before bedtime each night).

If you think about it, these things make men and women need each other LESS. If guys and gals were as horny as they SHOULD be, the hard-ons beneath the blue jeans would be painfully obvious and the wet pussies would damn near leave wet spots on cocktail dresses and the erect nipples would force women to wear hot-thick bras to hide them (further giving them a reason to tear them off).

A woman who is giving herself 25 orgasms through the week…………………………..ain’t’ gonna be all that horny on Friday and Saturday night. In fact, a “cute” guy she hooks up with might be as much a prop for all her friends and rivals to eyeball as much as her intended ticket to cum those weekend nights.

And……………….lets be honest with ourselves her guys. How many times have you been getting a “5” you met on the internet from behind when you weren’t imagining she was a porn star you’d seen on a freebie video at your desk at work instead?

There is no use griping about this for any of us, as the toys are not going to be put back in the box for either sex, but men need to be aware of what they are faced with.

If anything, its a reason to “game” them harder than ever and use their vanity and competitiveness against them to gain every little bit of leverege you can. Make her not feel she is anything unless she can validate herself to you, and that she is not a good lay unless she can make you have two orgasms.

goldenseed Thus a dildo presents an option for a girl to get off a lot without the slut label that will surely follow (whether this is right or wrong is another debate).

Exactly. I’ve noticed that men don’t like them thought. I had two average sized things under my pillow and an ex found them. He hated them and would throw them on the floor whenever he came over. I pointed out to him that it’s better and safer for a woman to have toys than a load of random men trying to hit the spot. I think toys make most men feel inadequate. Sort of the way p0*n makes most women inadequate.

Moreover, I pointed out that they were average sized so he shouldn’t feel embarrassed about his size. He hated all of the books, newspapers, and cat hair of the left side of my bed too.

“unconcerned about men’s opinions of her (good god, what a slut)”
– A.M.E.N.

reminds me of girls who will admit to you that they’ve destroyed some guy in the past, had him on the brink of suicide, then are shocked when you’re not one of the suckers lining up to fawn all over them.

My d but if a women has kids, but they live with the father, then i completely lose attraction for the heartless bitch

What if her children where teenage males and she sent them to live with their farther so they could learn how to become men or so he could discipline them?

I don’t like women who randomly dump their children either btw. Do you remember all of those stories from about 5 years ago of women just up and leaving their children? One woman took a trip to Italy with her new boyfriend and left her children in the house alone. The oldest was 14 or 16 at the time.

@goldenseed- Most women will have HPV at some point in their lives. There are so many different strands of the virus. Most of the time the body heals it’s self. There are only a few strands of the virus that lead to cervical cancer. Condoms don’t protect you against this disease. So chances are if she has sleep with someone like Roosh* or any professional athlete, she has or has had HPV.

@goldenseed- Well you won’t develop cervical cancer but you can spread it around to other women.

BS reminds me of girls who will admit to you that they’ve destroyed some guy in the past, had him on the brink of suicide, then are shocked when you’re not one of the suckers lining up to fawn all over them.

-Almost all HPV is cleared without symptoms in both sexes.
-Two strains can rarely cause cervical cancer in women. It can (normally) be readily be diagnosed via PAP screens. There are about 10,000 deaths/yr. in the US, mostly in lower income women who’ve had no Pap screening.
-A few strains can cause genital warts in both men and women. Again rare, and readily treated.

Gardasil vaccine should be regarded as an extra – to be purchased with discretionary dollars. Vaccination does not eliminate the need for routine PAP screening.

So, for practical purposes, her statement was true. I think HPV has become a social stigma problem.

anony@Laura above:
You are OKay with being just #34, #76, or #101. To others of us, this thought is repulsive. It’s buzzkill. It’s insulting. Those men even smell gross. Others of us will have sex only on OUR terms, with certainty that we are appreciated and special.

Cosign anony. I would be so embarrased if I had to go to the GYN because my slut boyfriend gave me a disease. I would also hate to have some of his former flings asking me how her pus*& tastes. Or asking if he has done that thing where he” hookd it over” blah blah blah.

@golden and chic,
“most women will have HPV at some point”—not sure I’d agree with that. If we refer to strains #16 and #18, and the widespread use of vaccination, then this will not be true in the future. Most young girls will NOT have it. The prevalence is (presumably) decreasing.

I am. Two things are at play here. For guys like me who want children, it automatically puts the girl in the pump and dump category. For all guys, it’s a signal that this woman is lacking a basic feminine characteristic and is probably lacking others as well.

it’s #4 that kills it. A girl with a strong libido but high enough quality to save herself for only a high quality man and use her dildo most nights is fine. She should hide the dildo instinctually when she brings me over though. A slut who leaves the damn thing laying around the house is garbage.

As Bateman wrote above, it’s a symbol of femininity. It’s a good question to ask if you’re trying to qualify her. I also like asking “What’s your favorite thing to cook?” and of course, compare her index and ring fingers.

@anony- A few years ago when HPV became the big news story, a number of doctors and studies were quoted as saying that most women will contract the virus at some point in their life. but* you know how those studies go mon yes tues no. Most women get better without medication or being aware that they were infected.

You’ve got the right understanding, Chic, so I won’t quibble. As you stated, most women will never have symptoms.

But, consider: how will the prevalence change since girls have been vaccinated? It will diminish, and the sexual population will be “segregated” into haves and have-nots. This will create a stigma for the have’s ———hence, goldenseeds question.

Your right anonyBut, consider: how will the prevalence change since girls have been vaccinated? It will diminish, and the sexual population will be “segregated” into haves and have-nots. This will create a stigma for the have’s ———hence, goldenseeds question.

Your right anony. There have been a few deaths linked to the gardenseal (tp) vaccine. Some healthcare workers argue that it was rushed to the marketplace.

and it’s sort of like how a herpes simplex I(cold sores) stigma is starting to pick of steam. It’s mostly from the uninformed thought.

@Sparks- what about toe length? What if her second toe is longer than her big toe. Or what if her second, third, and fourth toes are longer than her big toe

I’ve broken three rabbit type vibrators. I don’t recommend them for fit women.

If a woman has a pretty high sex drive and is fit, with good pelvic floor muscles, she actually needs penetration occasionally. If it has been too long, the muscles get tense, and congestion in the area can actually be painful. Ladies need to keep our pipes in working order as well.

…but in my opinion, the best solution is to go out and get a man. When you’ve aged out of the mainstream market anyway, it doesn’t matter much if most guys think you’re a slut. You just need to find one guy who isn’t an idiot, and have a good shag that hopefully comes with a respectful relationship.

“It’s endearing to us and suggests you will be worth keeping around. We don’t want women to embrace their sluttiness as if it were a postmodern badge of honor. A good woman understands this and heeds a man’s romantic sensibilities.”

“The trick for men is finding a balance in women between unrepressed sexuality and faithful frigidity. Too much of the former = cumguzzling slut. Too much of the latter = blue balls. A proudly displayed purple saguaro says “I’m a slut, and you’ll like it.”

“I’ve found that the more power I acquire over women, the pickier I’m becoming. I won’t call back a girl who has a purple saguaro on her nightstand. This choosiness has strengthened my character. I’m a better man for it.”

I could not agree with you more. Balance is the key and discriminating tastes are acquired as you get older. The stuff that many a girl would do when I as nineteen that seemed so unbelievable is now in many cases a turn off to me. The “she’s a kinky chick who is going to do everything I ever fantasized about while masturbating as a horny, deprived teenage” phase passes, I suppose once you have fucked enough kinky bitches so the novelty wears off. And after enough kinky bitches=psycho bitches, you start to become a bit more discriminating in your tastes.

Modesty in a woman, even if it is only a bit, taps into a man’s desire for the hunt, the chase and the conquest. I can only speak for myself, but I enjoy a challenge, and also knowing to a reasonable degree that a girl I am interested in has not fucked dozens of men. I once dated a girl who had slept with many men. We lived in rather small urban town, where most people have at least seen you before walking down the street, even if they have no idea who you are. I hated being seen with her. I wondered as I passed each guy on the street, “Did this guy fuck her, or did that guy fuck her, and does he see me and know I am nothing more than the latest participant in her slow motion gang bang?” Our relationship did not last long, in part because I could never give myself over fully to someone who had been that promiscuous.

To all you sexually liberated chics out there, this is how most men think. If you are promiscuous, you really have little value to us beyond the quick fuck.

And yes, choosiness does strengthen a man’s character. It also gives him much more power in the pursuit of women. A man being choosy negates most of the capricious power a woman has over a man in the game. Being able to say no to a woman is our secret nuclear weapon against all her powers.

I actually think we might be in somewhat agreement in your response to my last post; I sometimes forget that I still only sleep with girls I have some respect for; hookups are something that happens often enough, but usually after a personality litmus test, In this regard, I still have a ways to go before being “alpha” in this blog’s mind, although I don’t know how happy I’d be pumping and dumping for the next 10 years…

Thing is though, take care that you don’t turn an insecurity about a woman having had any kind of sex life at all before you, into labelling women sluts who’ve always conducted themselves ethically.

The ability to say no may be the missile, but the warhead is awareness that the defining M.O. of a whore is someone who doesn’t give sex without payment. Whores don’t like sex, so it’s easy for them to use it as currency, and to remain “chaste” until they meet buyers.

Tupac, use a female screen name starting with the title “Mistress”, and go into a chatroom sometime.

Make a female profile somewhere, with the title, and don’t even put a photo up…or put a photo up of some fat woman from the neck down.

Hey, I give you permission to use *my* old fat pics for this if you like.

See what kind of responses you get. See how *many* responses you get.

See the kinds of guys you get them from.

If you want the truth, go out and get it. Talk to some Dommes. See how they’re all just (heh) so very desperate for male attention, and all the guys who try to get to them are such broke ass omega losers…

Ah…here we go. Use this one. This is from when I weighed about 250 lbs. and retained alot of water, so I even had fat fingers.

Say you’re married and into discreet play, so they’ll know their privacy won’t be an issue.

Some of us just talk about life. Some of us actually have lives.

Call me delusional once you’ve been out there and actually found your experiences to be contrary to what I’m saying. When you do get out there though, you’ll find out the same things I did, and there will be no need for silly pissing matches, as I will no longer intimidate you.

Comparing someone’s ring to index finger is a somewhat crude way of determining how masculine or feminine someone is. If their ring finger is longer than their index finger, they probably have fairly high levels of testosterone and a more masculine personality.

Unrelated, SNL had a mildly amusing sketch called Cougar Den that goes against the usual media glorification of cougars. I thought the readers of this blog might enjoy it.

to continue my comment above: if you’re actually thinking about “years to sag” when you’re about to fuck a chick – i.e., you aren’t just dropping comments to strengthen the thematic unity of this blog – this is probably a sign that you’re just wasting your time.

in fact, you may want to go out and get (gasp!) a real relationship.
because a real relationship makes sex better. it just does. all the emotions in the relationship enhance sex.
and that’s not just when the relationship is going well.

and, if you’re a true PUA, you’ll be able to have that relationship and still have what you want on the side. if you can’t swing that, that’s a sign of insufficient game, not a sign of the inevitability of restrictions posed by a relationship.

take it from someone who’s been there and done that: yes, it is possible to get sick and tired of banging random chicks. even when you have essentially unlimited access to random chicks.
or:
rockstars have relationships, too. ever wonder why?

—

I’ve found that the more power I acquire over women, the pickier I’m becoming. I won’t call back a girl who has a purple saguaro on her nightstand.

if i’m feeling “picky”, i’ll simply walk out.
yes, sex is the greatest thing in the world, but, as a wise man once said, “a good piss is better than a bad fuck”.
and, to me, “bad fuck” includes fucking anyone i’m just not that into at the moment.

Tupac, one of the things I’ve learned about you and some other guys on this site is that you’re thick headed. I have limited patience for trying to cure the stupid.

So if you want to know what it’s like to be a Domme, and what kinds of guys go for us, go find out for yourself. I’m aware that nothing I tell you here is going to help the situation, and really, it’s not the venue.

My point in my responses is that the vibrator out in the open was a warning of something more than or something other than her being a slut…not to start a pissing match with people who can’t handle the truth.

You want knowledge. There are thousands of websites and communities out there for you to get it. I’ve even given you the basic tools to step into my skin…well, my former skin, and see what it’s like to be me for awhile.

That’s the only truly effective way I know to prove to you that I’m far from delusional. My telling you so wouldn’t make it so anyway. So if you want the truth, there it is. Go find it or kindly get off my latex vibrating jock.

You wish they were fantasies, but as a player, you fit the profile. If you don’t like taking it up the pooper, you’re an exception to the rule.

My experience and observation compelled me to call bullshit on this claim.

So you said:

If you want the truth, go out and get it. Talk to some Dommes. See how they’re all just (heh) so very desperate for male attention, and all the guys who try to get to them are such broke ass omega losers…

I then asked you to clarify, since you originally were making a claim about “players”, but then referenced “broke ass omega losers.”

You then proceeded to lose your shit and call me names.

Try and keep it together, toots. A logical gaffe isn’t the end of the world, especially if you learn from it. Who knows? You might even begin to stop kidding yourself and learn what a *real* ego is.

Like I said, Tupac, my patience is limited. The -o thing was sarcasm…which is masculine and unattractive I know, but I’m not trying to get into your pants.

So try, if you can, to use a bit of logic.

What is a natural player?

Why would someone be a natural player? What kind of personality would want/need to go around shagging a bunch of women, and actually have the ability to make it so?

What turns a novelty seeker on is, you guessed it, novelty.

If such a person has the freedom and privacy to do whatever they want…

It’s not that big a stretch. I think your inner good little boy is just in denial about the people you’re attempting to emulate.

It would be kind of suck to find out guys some of you work very hard to mimic the explicit behaviors of, are in large part, a bunch of sissy bottoms when they have the opportunity to be so.

Fortunately for you, there are actual Dominant men who don’t like to take it up the yingyang. The average moderately vanilla player though, isn’t responsible enough for all that, and is just in it for the thrill of the moment, and probably working out some issues around his sexuality.

A great many of them actually have sex with men, when they can get away with it. It’s not so hard to figure that a woman who’s fairly sexually experienced, and does players regularly, would show that she’s willing to go places these kinds of guys typically enjoy going.

“I’ll second a prior comment and say that the woman deliberately left the “cactus” in plain sight as a shit test.”

Why would she be shit testing a guy that she just brought home for the night? I don’t think she has any interest in shit testing, she’s just a product of a culture that has taught her its ok to leave a monstrous vibrator sitting on the night stand. The true answer is that women have no shame nowadays.

Look at these Dildo Parties women attend. It’s openly accepted practice for a girl and her friends to get together at one of their houses and peruse through an array of dildos, vibrators, and sex creams. I find nothing really wrong with all this; I’m just saying that it has become socially acceptable to openly flaunt these things. That attitude allows the cactus lady to have no shame about leaving her toy out in plain sight.

I understand what you are saying. My experience has been that the more wantonly promiscuous a woman was, the more messed up she tended to be mentally and other ways. Perhaps others have different experiences but that has been mine. Also, as pointed out time and again on this blog, as a man I am leery of a woman who has slept with a lot of men. It means my chances of impregnating her with my child are just a little or a lot less than a woman who at least has some standards. And I will not spend my life and resources raising another man’s child. At that point that puts her out of the running for a serious partner in life. She becomes just too risky. Women are free to do whatever they want but they have to understand that all choices in life have consequences, and the consequences for having a lot of sex partners is that men will be not as interested in you as you may like. If a woman has a past but is no longer doing those things that is one thing, but carrying on in the present is another.
Like everything wrong in our society today, like the thing that has led to this massive economic crisis we are now facing, everybody wants to have everything without any costs at all, and that is just not possible. Women cannot act like men when it comes to sex and still expect men to treat them they way they may want to be treated. The more modest women will always win us over more so than the promiscuous woman.

Trust me, I love a sexual woman. As pointed out, there has to be a balance though.

I honestly don’t see what the big deal is here. Clearly, if all his previous posts are to be believed, he isn’t necessarily in a big rush to get himself into a LTR…so again, so what if girlfriend has her vibe collection out on the nitestand for all to see?

Personally, I’ve never been bothered in the least by a Woman’s toys. Not. One. Bit. Doesn’t reflect on me in any way whatsoever, and has never bothered my performance at all.

Sure, there’s something to be said for looking out for Women who’ve had one too many sex partners. I’ve spoken on this topic in this venue before. But I honestly do not think that a Women having a, quite frankly to my mind, rather comical “contraption” sitting on the table, nominates her for the Town Skank.

And also, just speaking for myself, I find a woman with a bit of modesty a thousand times sexier than a “girls gone wild” slut type. I don’t mean a girl who dresses frumpy, but someone who dresses well, speaks well, is not afraid to highlight her natural attributes, but leaves a something to the imagination too. I mean someone who acts lady like, and not like a man. I mean someone who has some sort of standards but is still sexual and alluring. Others may feel differently, but I like a bit of a challenge and having my imagination stimulated as well. Also, anticipation is highly sexually stimulating.

Thanks anon. I don’t understand why women line up to sleep with Mick Jagger. I mean I understand that he has a reputation for being talented but still yuck. Dude isn’t even the masculine of men. Anyone else notice how a good number of rock stars and big time rappers a bit effeminate. The worst of the effeminate rock star bunch is Prince.

One thing I would like to see more about on this blog is the zone where an analytical, intellectual man gains a deep understanding of Game, and can even coach others on it with apparent mastery of the subject matter, but is still incompetent in practice (i.e. can’t do approaches, has to ‘remember’ to get in ‘Game-mode’, get a lot of flakes, etc.)

I think a lot of guys are stuck in this zone, particularly if they are deep thinkers who over-analyze. They know about every detail of game in theory, but can’t string it together into consistent real-world practice.

For all we know, the same may even be true here – brilliant in writing about Game, but mediocre in practicing it. Who knows?

I think this is an important topic to cover. It is the next big area of troubleshooting within the Seduction community, as the population of guys who fit this description is growing.

I usually think you’re pretty funny & well-written, but this post makes me wants to smack you in the face with a purple saguaro. Do you pretend like you don’t masturbate? Do you denying whacking off in the shower or in your bed or in the bathroom? Do you hide the lotion?

Give me a break. Everyone’s got needs. If you’re all about encouraging people to be sexual, don’t judge them when they are. This post reeks of idiocy with a heaping side of hypocrisy. Go back to being funny.

Give me a break. Everyone’s got needs. If you’re all about encouraging people to be sexual, don’t judge them when they are. This post reeks of idiocy with a heaping side of hypocrisy. Go back to being funny.

Go back and read number four. It’s not that she’s sexual, it’s that she has a complete indifference to the comfort level of her partner. It’s the equivalent of a guy leaving Hustlers lying around on his coffee table or leaving porn open on his desktop. At least lotion would have plausible deniability.

“Give me a break. Everyone’s got needs. If you’re all about encouraging people to be sexual, don’t judge them when they are. This post reeks of idiocy with a heaping side of hypocrisy. Go back to being funny.”

I’m not trying to answer here, but he’s not denying that people have needs. He’s making the casual observation that a chick who displays her va-ginormous vibrator for the world to see is probably a slut. What’s your beef with that?

>Do you pretend like you don’t masturbate?
>Do you denying whacking off in the shower
>or in your bed or in the bathroom? Do you
>hide the lotion?

Not that you guys care but from about age 12 to age 23 I didn’t jerk off once. It probably was bad for me psychologically and I know it was physically. Between 22 and 23 I was in a long distance relationship and I didn’t have any “releif”. I actually got so backed up I couldn’t walk. I literally had an ultrasound done on my nuts and my PSA was 8 which usually means cancer. My prostate was so swollen I couldn’t sit down. Finally the urologist figured out what was really wrong, he said, “whoa… you need to ejaculate Mr goody2shoes, are you fucking crazy!” So yes I didn’t whack off… but it was a really bad idea.

chicnoir: “There are some str8 men who are in to being pen by a woman. Something about the prostate being stimulated. The little old sex doctor of Oxygen channel gets asked a question about male pen almost every week. I can’t see a difference amongst men who are into male pen and who like having it tossed personally. There was a very good episode of Sex & the City that covered this very topic.”

THAT’S BECAUSE AMERICA IS INCREASINGLY A PATHETIC, VAGINIZED SOCIETY – THIS IS THE REASON IT’S CURRENTLY FALLING APART.

I did read 4. And I did read the disclaimers with 1-3 & am glad that the “moderation” thing gets a nod, as does the being-weirded-out-by-a-lack-of-modesty thing. And I get it & to some extent appreciate it & agree with it.

But mostly I just get frustrated at all the “A woman must be a slut if X, Y or Z” talk. I’ve yet to come up with a set of hard & fast standards that say “A man must be a manwhore if…,” & it just seems so absurd to people (OK, mostly men), who so heartily enjoy coming up with all these rules & lists about what does & doesn’t make a woman a “slut” & then more rules & lists about when men should & shouldn’t actually WANT a slut (you know, should want to take one home from a bar, shouldn’t want to take one home to mom; should want to sleep with one once; shouldn’t ever want to call her again, etc.).

A woman can be slutty sometimes without being a slut, & a woman who’s slutty can just as easily be a great, loving, monogamous girlfriend when the right guy/time/whatever rolls around. It’s just so annoying to see that on posts like this, so many commenters just seem to nod their heads & take notes, like, “Note to self: X, Y, Z make a woman a slut. Do not date a woman who is X, Y, or Z. Do fuck women who are X, Y, or Z but, repeat, do NOT take them home. OK, got it.”

I’m sure I’ll get some people railing at me calling me a raging feminist or whatever, but I don’t see why a woman has to be either a slut or not a slut — most women are some combination of both at different times & in different situations.

@Suburban Sweetheart
I think there is something to the idea that past behavior is somewhat related to future behavior. This isn’t always true, but there is a reason they use this concept for doing job interviews and such. For what ever reason you believe, men do indeed have some bias against slutty behavior when evaluating LTR. Would you agree that different situations definitely require different scrutiny? I really don’t want my accountant to have a massive gambling problem…. for example, but I could care less if my bartender does….If people screened a little better, it’s possible our divorce and cuckoldry rates wouldn’t be so hilarious.

@epiclolz, Excellent response, good sir. Love it. And yes, I do agree. But think about it: One man’s slut is another man’s future wife. Just because a girl (or guy) sleeps around or is sexually free or whatever (Am I 80? “Sexually free”? Eh, you get it) doesn’t mean they’re going to be that way forever or that they wouldn’t happily settle down & take the monogamous route for someone worth it or compatible or whatever. I don’t, for example, sleep with a guy & then think, “Oh, I can’t believe he slept with me! What a SLUT. Ugh, I have no respect for him.” If it doesn’t click on any level beyond sexual, then whatever. It is what it is – it doesn’t make either person involved slutty or damaged goods or disreputably whorish, & I certainly don’t think it means that neither of those people will ever be someone else’s good relationship material. There are plenty of things that can signify NOT being relationship material (prior histories of cheating, abuse or liking “American Idol”) but unless you’re screwing a different person every night, sleeping around in the LTR interim doesn’t qualify you as a slut who’s never going to be worth anyone’s time or effort to date.

I’m tired. I don’t even know if this made sense, but I’m guessing someone will call me out if it doesn’t.

i agree, suburban. i don’t think that a set of rules can determine whether a girl is a “slut” (in the sense that he is talking about), as i know many a girl that might come off initially as “slutty” because she enjoys sex just like everyone else does, but is, in fact, not “slutty” at all in the right circumstances.

you’re about to sleep with her — i would certainly hope she’s being at least a little bit of a slut for you. that doesn’t mean she’s going to run to another man the moment you walk out the door. context, people, context.

perhaps we forget, with the way the pua stuff works, that sex is still a very intimate situation. if she’s in touch with her sexuality and willing to share that with you, it just might possibly be that she trusts you, a little bit, and is okay with sharing things other than body fluids with you.

that’s not to say leaving our sex toys out is something we should do, i just don’t necessarily think it makes her a slut. you notice it, she has two choices — be embarrassed, or be proud. i think you need a little more to determine whether she’s actually a slut or not, but hey.

Suburban, I think the thing is that men can be sluts, but they had BETTER bring some career prestige to the table, or something that’s an adequate substitute.

Women aren’t so free to be sluts, but are also generally not going to be pegged as losers just because we don’t have the stellar career going.

A pretty, soft-spoken, feminine waitress whose sexual history isn’t a mile long can stand a better chance of marrying well than your hardened 30ish female attorney who’s fucked every remotely eligible guy in her radius for the last fifteen years.

It gets down to this; if she’s willing to let a man she just met her most intimate possessions without shame or even a slight feeling of awkwardness, what is sacred? She’ll definitely rub her tits on his friend’s nose at the slightest provocation. She’s definitely more apt to flirt openly with other guys since she has betrayed what was once a social taboo: hide your fucking dildos.

“but women who have bedded a lot of men are not so attractive to men because men value a woman’s chastity and beauty, not her ability to easily get laid.”

The woman who has had 15 sexual partners (but dated 100 different men – 85 of whom she fought off) versus the girl who has had three sexual partners and they were the ONLY men who ever asked her out/tried to get in her pants.

I think the quality of sexual partners (and the relationship itself) also comes into play. A woman who had 10 one+ year relationships vs. a woman who has had three one night stands.

Not only is dildo girl probably a slut, she probably has a deranged relationship with her own genitals. I’ve been presented with sex toy collections as if they were prized 16th century etchings. I think such women are looking for me to pat them on the head and say, “yes, you’re a dirty little bird.” Personally, I don’t think it has so much to do with slut or not slut as the fact that women who don’t jerk off are about 1000% better in the sack than those who do.

When I was in highschool, I ended up enrolling in a martial arts school.

My Master was a wise and tough man, but he also enjoyed sharing stories of his mispent youth.

He grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska, at the hight of the Cold War.

Just 59 miles from Strategic Air Command Headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska.

If the Russians ever lit em off, he and everyone he knew would have been dead from the 40+ megaton nukes. eg. Thermal Flashover, the rolling shockwaves or the fallout.

The Fear of a World Nuke War was potent stuff.

People propaganized with footage of Las Alamos test footage, and Japan’s defeat understood its Ultraleathal Threat.

It made people manic. The tension was palatable. For Fuck’s Sake, the world almost ended, during the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962, and This tension and fear was the catalist that kicked off the Summer of Love, in 1969.

Master had a female friend.
Her name was Tammy. She was a well behaved lass. Until the day, she understood what it was all about.

(That the Axe was overhead and poised to strike.)

She changed.

Master would go to ‘Happenings like what we see of woodstock, with a number of friends of his. Everyone living like they could die at anytime.

But Tammy…
She would climb into the back of a van, at age 15.

And pull her own train, for 4 to 6 days at a time. Hundreds of men. One after another. Never more then one at a time. Only stopping for a drink of water or to pee.

He asked her why, once…

She said: “I don’t ever want some guy to die unloved. And I want to die with a smile too, when The Bombs come.”

My question I ask myself….

Was she honest about her Raison d’être for what she became, or was she a really just a slut, fait acompli, all along?

Not that they are mutually exclusive. Her behavior by todays standards would make her a slut, but in the context of her day and time… maybe not so much?

“If a man can demonstrate the skills of seduction, how he chooses to use them is less of a direct issue.”

I disagree. Quality women look at the quality of the women men date. If he’s dating skank trash, a quality woman will not go near him. STD’s/herpes will be the first concern. Second concern is no quality woman wants to be seen with a man who dates skanks – for she may be mistaken for one also.

When I say quality I don’ t mean just looks – she’s an 8 or above granted, but she has the rest of the goods (elegance, high iq, etc.) too.

old married lady
Suburban, I think the thing is that men can be sluts, but they had BETTER bring some career prestige to the table, or something that’s an adequate substitute.

Women aren’t so free to be sluts, but are also generally not going to be pegged as losers just because we don’t have the stellar career going.

A pretty, soft-spoken, feminine waitress whose sexual history isn’t a mile long can stand a better chance of marrying well than your hardened 30ish female attorney who’s fucked every remotely eligible guy in her radius for the last fifteen years.

You really are old. Things have changed, old married lady. Young women now have more career prestige than men (they earn more than their male peers in most high-income cities), and they are better educated on average than men.

Given that the successful men are frequently left and taken for all they’re worth, what’s the point in worrying about whether this old lady thinks we’re losers or not? She says men had “BETTER bring some career prestige to the table.” Who the hell is this worn-out towel to make demands?

Old ladies are possibly the most insufferable, parasitic segment of modern American society. They outlive their husbands and spend the leftover money on trips to Vegas or the Riviera. That’s really a stellar deal for guys, no?

To all the men out there:

Never listen to anything a dried-up old lady tells you. It is worse than a waste of your time.

“Given that the successful men are frequently left and taken for all they’re worth, what’s the point in worrying about whether this old lady thinks we’re losers or not? She says men had ‘BETTER bring some career prestige to the table.'”

‘Successful’ betas – alphas keep their [alpha] women in check. Alpha women are intelligent enough to know a good [alpha] man and treat them like kings.

You want an alpha female? You had BETTER bring some career prestige to the table! Third rate lawyers and others in the bottom tiers of their professions need not apply. You need to be at the top of your ‘game’ and that ‘game’ isn’t whoring around picking up skanks in bars every night.

Note that I didn’t qualify alpha with ‘successful.’ If you don’t have career “prestige” – no matter how good in bed/how many skanks you’ve banged – you are beta – period.

Lisa is forgetting that women the ‘alpha female’ category are actually less desirable than those in the ‘bright and feminine but unambitious preschool teacher’ category. The women who tend to aggressively pursue only the most ostentatiously successful men tend to be distinctly unfeminine in a number of ways. They may have high sex drives and be good for a roll or two, but they are not the ones the alphas want. Some alphas will occassionally end up with (and cheat on) them because they are the ones who aggressively pursue *them*.

Perseus says, “The more modest women will always win us over more so than the promiscuous woman.”

This is good so long as you remember the hoe principle. The most modest woman is not necessarily the least promiscuous one.

Nor is the least promiscuous, the most faithful. Lots of women out there have only screwed two or three guys in their lives, but one was their chump ex, and the other was the bad boy or rich guy they left him for.

When dealing with my own dilema about a married guy who wants me to be his full fledged mistress, I asked myself, “Does it make you less of a whore if you only have one client?”

Looking at the numbers instead of the conduct has gotten three of my friends married to whores. Additionally, the married guy is married to a whore with only him in her sexual history. She’s trying to pressure him to sign over half his property to her, instead of having it pass directly to their sons.

It doesn’t matter if a woman is as chaste as a nun if she’s after your money. She’s a hoe.

Some of the biggest whores I know, call themselves “wives”. I’m a realist about this, and am not judging people as good or bad because of whether or not they want to marry or something. All I’m saying is some hoes are worth the price you’ll pay, and some aren’t. If you fall in love with someone who wants to nest like a parasite on your account, just make sure she’s worth it.

Note that I didn’t qualify alpha with ’successful.’ If you don’t have career “prestige” – no matter how good in bed/how many skanks you’ve banged – you are beta – period.

I, Lisa, don’t really mind being beta, alpha, omega or whatever.

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end”

I can’t afford to worry about what women think of me, because their minds change like the breeze on top of a cliff. Better to enjoy the view, and let the wind play only with the hairs on my head. If I took them too seriously, I suppose I’d follow them into the abyss, but slavery is overrated.

Getting laid, if it happens, is simply dessert after a nice meal. So you have a warm hole between your legs? It is really not that special. Go into any room of people and there are dozens of these things moving around, supported by limbs and decorated in various ways.

In fact, what is far more important is what men think of me, because I don’t work for women. Hence, I have no more use for “alpha women” than any others.

I disagree. Quality women look at the quality of the women men date. If he’s dating skank trash, a quality woman will not go near him.

Who’s talking about dating?

Dating is slow, it gives time to think and analyze.

If I am in a bar and three good looking skanks hug me and are all over me, I pretty much have free choice in almost any quality girl in the bar, be it long term or be it short term.

Attraction is not a choice.

. Second concern is no quality woman wants to be seen with a man who dates skanks – for she may be mistaken for one also.

Second concern is that no man want to be seen as committing to a slut/promiscuous woman – for it means he was the sucker who picked up the tab and was not good enough to be just a sex object. Makes a man feel like cleaning the sewer pipe of new york city and paying to do that job.

‘Successful’ betas – alphas keep their [alpha] women in check. Alpha women are intelligent enough to know a good [alpha] man and treat them like kings.

Alpha female is the female that has femininity. In your description, alpha female is the one with status. And this alpha female will make the lives of any alpha/beta she dates miserable, due to her high expectations and competitive nature.

Alpha female is my e.g. aunt, who got a hard working respected man to commit to her and make five children with her, and support her for a lifetime.

That is alpha.

Not my cousin who is working 60 hours and is divorced.

You want an alpha female? You had BETTER bring some career prestige to the table!

Note that I didn’t qualify alpha with ’successful.’ If you don’t have career “prestige” – no matter how good in bed/how many skanks you’ve banged – you are beta – period.

Almost any presitge in job comes with a good deal of money.

Like I said,

Assets of man:

Status, power, money, and the willingness to give the blank check called sperm.

So you have a warm hole between your legs? It is really not that special. Go into any room of people and there are dozens of these things moving around, supported by limbs and decorated in various ways.

Bingo! Men seem to forget that quality women (good looking, feminine, educated, skilled, loyal, modest, emotionally stable…) lose RESPECT for them when they’re with women who ARE NOT quality. “”

Maybe those quality women will lose respect for guys that bang a bunch of what you suggest are low-quality women. But we have thousands of years of human history which says those same quality women will be more attracted to guys that bang lots of women than they will be to guys that get less action.

But we have thousands of years of human history which says those same quality women will be more attracted to guys that bang lots of women than they will be to guys that get less action.

zg pretty much nailed it.

what evidence?
saying it is so doesn’t make it so.
It is understandable that men prefer to believe that, but it doesn’t work that way.
Men with skanks are repulsive. attention from them is insulting. Clinton became gross after Lewinski. Men denigrate themselves with skanks.

The handle is as much a joke as anything– I’m 27. But married now for six years, so sometimes I feel old. 😉

And I don’t know, or care, if you personally are a loser in love or not, so why be all angry at me?

My only point, which is well-accepted by anyone who’s paying any attention to the human animal at all, is that men and women don’t value the same things in each other.

Most of the time, for most people, these things are all true. “Prestige” is going to mean different levels of success to different levels of attractive women… and yes, a man chasing the vaunted 9 had BETTER bring some serious social/financial prestige to the table if he wants to keep her, have kids with her, etc.

The woman chasing the successful entrepreneur had likewise BETTER be outrageously attractive, and have a modicum of what used to be known as “shamefacedness” to boot.

Clinton is disgusting and was long before he did the fat pig skank Lewinski. No decent woman would want him and THAT is precisely why he is married to she-male Hillary and scoring trailer trash on the side.

Welmer said:
Old ladies are possibly the most insufferable, parasitic segment of modern American society. They outlive their husbands and spend the leftover money on trips to Vegas or the Riviera.

My maternal grandmother certainly did.

To get a better idea of the Generosity of Old Women, you should read Old Married Lady on the Clio site:
Nasty Old Woman said:
As to divorce, I honestly have a hard time mustering up a lot of sorrow for divorcees, broadly speaking. Marriage is purely a voluntary business these days, both when you first get in and then every day after that.

Pitiless hag.

Nasty Old Woman said:
Both of you have to earn each other’s love and loyalty every day of the week, and when you fail to do this effectively, you open yourself up to a lot of heartache.

Demanding old hag who has the sheer audacity to ignore what her husband has done for her for DECADES and ask what he has done for her TODAY.

Gratitude, thy name is woman.

But she is TOUGH. Never underestimate an old woman’s capacity to inflict suffering. Take it? Well, not so much.

My maternal grandmothers air-conditioning broke, and having spent all her second husbands money on slot-machines, she naturally called my mother.

You see, if grammy didn’t get the airconditioner fixed RIGHT NOW, she was going to DIE.

She had already, using her old time folksy wisdom, sealed herself in her trailer and turned on every heat-generating electric fan she could. Needless to say, the trailer was far hotter than outside.

That’s Smarts.

She then showed her People Smarts by insisting that the people who my mother had paid to not-fix the air-conditioner a few months before that also be used to not-fix it this time. That’s smarts.

And she had to have it in a rush, weekend call, because, as you know by now, Grammy was going to DIE if it didn’t get fixed RIGHT NOW.

Hopefully, the ‘repairman’ didn’t break the furnace while he was there.

Gem from phone conversations held at high-volume on my end:
‘Well what do you want me to do, slap her?’-Mom

The height of abominable cruelty imaginable to such a sainted creature as “grandma”. I responded rather loudly that since she was paying whatever grandma wanted to get the air-conditioner repaired right now by who grandma wanted to repair it, what exactly HAD she done accept exactly what Grandma wanted.

No comment.

I also was proud of Grandma’s ability to throw her whining baby fit right in front of the repairman so that the little cheating scumbag knew that he could charge whatever he wanted. Mom replied that grandma hadn’t done her hysterical gabbling to mom ‘in front of the repairman’. I asked where in the trailer could they have had their little conversation that the repairman couldn’t have heard it?

No comment on that either.

And that is the strength, the wisdom, the solidity and courage of most old women.

“Alpha female is the female that has femininity. In your description, alpha female is the one with status. And this alpha female will make the lives of any alpha/beta she dates miserable, due to her high expectations and competitive nature.”

Read both my posts – my definition of an alpha includes (it’s mandatory) the feminine.

What rejoinder are you looking for? It’s a football-hooligan type conversation stopper. I don’t quite get your motivation, or your point. Truly. I have no concept whatsoever of why you bother being so inane.

Men (usually betas – alphas don’t need to do skanks for ego boost) who bed skanks have very little to no chance with an alpha woman.

Such a creature is about as mythical as a unicorn, so who cares. You’ve just described .004% of all American women. I’m sure you believe you fall in this category too, but based on your comments you’re nowhere close.

As long as both parties are genuinely satisfied with the bargain they’ve made, that’s what matters in the long run.

Genuinely satisfied in the long run!! That’s like being genuinely drunk in the long run, or genuinely in love in the long run, or genuinely springtime in the long run. No one is anything in the long run.

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by “satisfied,” right? Marriage (for those of us who choose to participate) is part sexual, part business, part familial, even partly spiritual… no, you aren’t going to be perfectly content with every aspect of the arrangement every single day, but over the long haul you ideally consider yourself to have found the best partner you could have.

I know I married the best man for me, and he says the same about me.

I’m crazier about him than I was when we got married.

If that isn’t satisfaction over the long haul, I don’t know what is. Maybe get back to me in forty years? LOL.

you exhibit poor understanding of how the sexual market functions. a woman’s socioeconomic status has little to do with her ranking as a potential mate for men. a 9 is so by her looks, not her class.

also, you have a blindspot with regard to the power of social proof in attracting women. a man seen with “bar skanks” as you call them will be more attractive to women than a man with no woman at his side. social proof as a concept is influenced by both the quantity and quality of the women a man has in his life. naturally, a man who dates nothing but 10s and is seen around town with them will be a pussy magnet, but a man who is seen having fun with 5s and 6s will also benefit from the phenomenon of female preselection. the true male losers are those without women or those reduced to banging the absolute dregs of womanhood, such as grossly obese fuglies or wall victim cougars.

Lisa, you are being so gossipy. You are trying to proscribe actions, to define sexuality. You tell more than listen. You seek concensus over study. You are trying to rally around an opinion, to make society agree.

You simply can not learn. You refuse to. Reality is just in the way of your opinion.

“To a man, the physical is more importance than you could see without cognitive dissonance making you disagree.”

To the alpha male (as for the alpha female) it is the entire package. Looks are THE most important of all the attributes of a woman – to both men AND women. I don’t know any man who would willingly choose a beast to bed and there are no alpha women who would choose a beastly female as a best friend.

Be that as it may, good looking women are a dime a dozen for the alpha male and, therefore, she will need to bring more to the table (i.e. bar skanks need not apply).

I beg to disagree. Alpha females chase alpha men, but of course not in the way that alpha men chase (alpha) women. The sexes are different.

At any rate, when I read a comment about supposedly high quality women not chasing supposedly high quality men, two alarms go off:

1) the frigidity alert

2) the little princess alert

One of them is enough to make me run.

Also, in all seriousness, I don’t know Lisa, but the whiny aggressive tone and content of her post is a huge turn-off. I’m not sure how she’s doing in the dating game, but I can say right now that I find her unattractive.

Seeking, there is a threshold of status that a woman must have to maintain >7 looks past the age of say, 20. This line is blurred only because the American standard for beauty is that someone simply be skinny.

…but a relevant example is street whores and escorts. They’re usually skinny and often pretty, but no guy in his right mind would want to marry one. No matter how good she looks, if a guy knows a woman has prostitution in her history, he won’t want to marry her.

However, women who have engaged in de facto prostitution, such as having boyfriends with financial or status rewards, are still considered okay.

This is only a matter of social class. Nothing more. Higher class beauty is considered worthy of marriage or showing off. Low class beauty is for shagging only.

Cases abound of guys bringing someone up, who looks good, but he won’t be bragging to his friends about how he found her through an escort service or a bar in Thailand. After so many horror stories, guys are becoming reluctant to reveal that they found a foreign bride through a dating agency.

A guy’s history with these things also follows him, especially when he starts to get a bit older. I don’t consider myself especially entitled, but I’m no sucker for pain. Just so as not to volunteer to be someone’s victim, I avoid guys with histories of dating whores…and if a guy is surrounded by skanks, that’s negative social proofing to me. I don’t do douchebags.

Allright Lisa, think about it this way. On the internet, no one knows if you are a dog. Meaning you don’t need a degree or official recognition to be in the know, and a degree and official recognition won’t make you seem smart.

Men see women that way. Status is completely irrelevant. Looks, and actions. And the actions we value are different than females value. We don’t value anything economic from women.

Lisa, given your high opinion of yourself and your harping about alpha females, I would doubt you know all that many lower economic class girls. There are a lot of spoiled princesses with no manners or modesty (I grew up with them). There are a lot of lower or middle class first generation American girls, or lower or middle class religious girls, with a lot more class.

Lisa, you’re arguing with men who either don’t have any status/finances on the line that a low class woman could threaten.

“Let the poor man have his wine.”

Guys only care about a woman’s status, intelligence, and such, if they themselves are high status or ambitious, and in need of a real companion or suitable trophy through their pursuit.

So you’re correct that alpha males seek out alpha females. What’s confusing most of the guys here is that they (being beta in social hierarchy terms) believe that what you’re saying is that an alpha:alpha pairing is (beta-)secure and always monogamous. That’s not what you’re saying at all.

When you’re arguing with guys here about this, keep in mind that as a female above a certain status threshold, you have access to a world that they don’t…which lends some credence to their point, though it isn’t as simple as they make it out to be.

“I would doubt you know all that many lower economic class girls. There are a lot of spoiled princesses with no manners or modesty (I grew up with them). There are a lot of lower or middle class first generation American girls, or lower or middle class religious girls, with a lot more class.”

True, but they don’t stay in the lower economic class for long. They get out. And the ‘princesses’ with no manners or class had low social class mothers who failed to raise them correctly. One of the hazards of marrying a woman based on her looks alone – your daughters will be low class/skanks/barflys no matter how much money you earn.

Lisa, I’ve noticed that, and it’s a serious problem here in Israel. Guys have to marry within their ethnicity, and the pickings are often very slim, so we now have a generation of hoes who actually look/act that instead of just being, well, tame hoes who would make remotely suitable wives at least in appearance.

A friend and I are thinking of starting a charm school…with some modern twists to keep it fun, but it’s basically to teach people manners and proper carriage.

On the male end, I’m thinking we should teach them game as well. It would be interesting to see the effects of unleashing a hoarde or gentlemen with a devilish edge onto the unsuspecting female populace here.

I think more than a woman’s looks alone matter to many high status guys. Many guys seek an accomplished woman, whose glories reflect back on him. Many, many men, not matter how hot the woman, would not want to date a stripper, or a low-class waitress, or a showgirl. Her economic status need not be great to many high-class men, but her status, along with her looks should be suitably comparable to his own.

Really, how many titans of industry, and ultra-alpha males do you see dating ultra-hot, but very low class women? Very few, compared to the amount that could. Which is an indicator that some other preference besides looks alone is at play.

You are trying to proscribe actions, to define sexuality. You tell more than listen. You seek concensus over study. You are trying to rally around an opinion, to make society agree.

You simply can not learn. You refuse to. Reality is just in the way of your opinion.

You are guilty of the same that you accuse Lisa.
Sane, ego-intact women regard men-who-fuck-bar-skanks as sullied, tainted losers. The tell-tail signs of your skank visits reveal themselves. You prefer not to believe that. You want to proscribe our values. Doesn’t work that way.

I agree with Lisa in that *really* high-status guys have such a breadth of beauties to pick from that they will generally choose a beauty who offers something ELSE, too, at least when it comes to marriage.

Family connections, educated sophistication, things that mean she will fit seamlessly into his extended family and social circle. I think the female career is probably just proxy for those social niceties these days.

But for just random hookups, I’m sure it is correct that they do not care much at all whether she’s a trailer-trash 9 or a Harvard-alumna 9.

More a contrasting set of priority continuums than totally black-and-white rules.

(because really hot chicks who can command a breadth of successful men will, all other things being equal, pick one who’s not too bad on the eyes.)

Obsidian, it wouldn’t matter who she posted. If the woman wasn’t a 10, they’d find something bad to say about her. Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton were both married to presidents, and are powerful women in their own rights, but the guys here will refuse to think of them as alpha even though these two are women they themselves would have to defer to in any social situation.

This is why I say it’s best to let some people have their illusions. It’s all they have.

I think the Clinton marriage was more a political partnership. They were equally ambitious. He saw her as a means to help him get power and vice versa. She will tolerate infidelity because this is not a marriage based on “love” or physical attraction. Respect too, probably but not in the typical way we think of a man respecting his loyal, feminine, devoted wife. More like adversarial respect. I see something similar with Obama. He needed street cred and she had more of it while also having access to power brokers. Can’t be too sure he doesn’t get some on the side as well.

(to be fair, for most of human history marriage was based on more practical matters than love. Consolidating power and money are among the oldest reasons to get married. The so the Clintons could be old school traditionalists in some ways)

Seeking Alpha, what about being in marketing or politics would require you to have a rich daddy to get by? I lived in the District on a measly $22,000 last year working in communications — and not getting any money from anyone else. That’s almost the poverty level in this city, my friend, but there are plenty of us doing it because we like it here, like our jobs & are willing to earn nothing – from our jobs or anyone else – while we work up. f you’re going to make all the sweeping assumptions you already make about women, I guess I ought not be surprised that you’re classist, too, but come on. Get a little creative. The “rich dads” thing is A) basic/worn out, and B) often untrue.

Sweetheart, what sweeping generalizations have I ever made about women? I’m sure that not every single DC working girl comes from a wealthy family. But you don’t get the sense that the average household income the average DC working girl grew up in is higher than the average American income?

Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton were both married to presidents, and are powerful women in their own rights, but the guys here will refuse to think of them as alpha even though these two are women they themselves would have to defer to in any social situation.

women aren’t judged by the same standards man are. that’s why world leaders all over were envious of jackie o when jfk was alive even tho she was an intellectual lightweight. surely no world leader is envious of bill clinton with his cankle shrew or obama with his klingon patrick ewing.

Nicole,
I have difficulty having discussions in the abstract, so I thought that, since it was Lisa who was making the case for Alpha Females, she might give us a few examples of what she thought they might be, in the real world. That others would disagree would be a given.

women aren’t judged by the same standards man are. that’s why world leaders all over were envious of jackie o when jfk was alive even tho she was an intellectual lightweight. surely no world leader is envious of bill clinton with his cankle shrew or obama with his klingon patrick ewing.

Jackie Kennedy and Princess Di were good looking, but not overwhelmingly so. But they both had something that was more important to the men that they were marrying, at the time that they were married, which was class. Jackie gave a sheen of elegance and culture to Kennedy’s Irish gangster background, while Di’s virginal, yet from the” proper” class of aristocracy helped continue the myth of the British monarchy.

Michelle Obama had the right kind of class for Obama too. I think it was very important for his political career to date a black woman, and not just any black woman, but one “authentically” so, from a working-class background. Yet he also needed someone who could move easily in the upper-echelon circles that he was aspiring to go. It would also help if she was brown-to-dark skinned. That mix is very hard to come by. So I’m sure that is why he jumped all over Michelle when he met her, which she, and everyone else confirms.

So no, men don’t just look at looks when choosing a mate. While physical appeal is no doubt important, it certainly is not the sole criteria.

Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton were both married to presidents, and are powerful women in their own rights, but the guys here will refuse to think of them as alpha even though these two are women they themselves would have to defer to in any social situation.

A man might acknowledge the power of Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton, but he wouldn’t be drawn to them sexually because of it unless he’s a masochist who likes being dominated in bed. Barack Obama strikes as kind of being this type, but Bill Clinton is harder egg to crack.

Keep in mind that liberals like Clinton and Obama might be more drawn to career women than the average male while conservative future presidents would be drawn to an adoring-type like Nancy Reagan or Laura Bush.

Also, Clinton and Obama’s careers depend on getting single feminists to vote for them. This was not the case for Kennedy and so he chose a feminine wife.

Now, Michelle is more feminine than Hillary but part of her appeal is not just to draw votes from working class blacks. These men picked these women as wives partly because they are not too feminine and attractive to scare of votes of the cat herders. They know their demographics and so these marriages were well played politically.

I doubt physical or emotional attraction was part of the consideration for either man. Just shrewd politics. They knew they could get physically attractive women on the side once they got power.

Seeking Alpha, sorry, guess I mixed you up with everyone else’s sweeping generalizations about women? And while you’re right that yes, most people in DC probably grew up wealthier than the average American, that also doens’t mean they’re wealthy themselves now – or that their wealthy families are still feeding them cash. I have plenty of friends here who come from real, legit money, more money than I can ever hope to make, who are struggling through because their parents are making them be “real adults” like everyone else…

Regardless of the type of alpha female these guys chose, the women were still alpha. In fact, the ones from more working class backgrounds had to have better female “game” than the ones born into wealth and/or aristocracy.

Michelle Obama had the right kind of class for Obama too. I think it was very important for his political career to date a black woman, and not just any black woman, but one “authentically” so, from a working-class background. Yet he also needed someone who could move easily in the upper-echelon circles that he was aspiring to go. It would also help if she was brown-to-dark skinned. That mix is very hard to come by. So I’m sure that is why he jumped all over Michelle when he met her, which she, and everyone else confirms.

that’s fine and dandy, but why the klingon aspect? to appeal to star trek fans? he could have gotten dark skinned, authentically black, working-class and educated without going extraterrestrial. he could have gotten a hottie like kenya moore.

Kenya Moore is pretty, but too trashy (actress/model type) for someone is who is aspiring to, but does not yet have, a political career. This is where class, and not just looks, comes in. A law degree having wife is much more respectable than a pageant actressy type.

Mandy makes a powerful point. As the Sarah Palin thing showed all of us, Women are incredibly sensitive to overt signs of beauty/sexual attractiveness in OTHER WOMEN, who are viewed as competitors. This explains why we see all those magazines in checkout lines at stores, and so on. A political wife cannot be seen as “too hot”, especially when it comes to the Dems.

“Lisa said that if you marry a girl from a low-class background, “your daughters will be low class/skanks/barflys” and implied that if you marry a girl from a high-class background, this won’t be the case.”

No, I said: they don’t stay in the lower economic class for long. They get out. And the ‘princesses’ with no manners or class had low social class mothers who failed to raise them correctly. One of the hazards of marrying a woman based on her looks alone [as opposed to her other attributes including social class] – your daughters will be low class/skanks/barflys no matter how much money you earn.

If you don’t mind how your children turn out then marry a woman based solely on looks. Good luck!

Now that I think about it, Lisa’s got a point to the extent that I certainly don’t select a Woman for what I consider beauty alone, but indeed on the basis of a number of factors, even if it’s to be a purely sexual relationship. When asked why I had the criteria I do elsewhere on the Internet, my reply was that I viewed all the Women I dealt with, no matter in what way, as potential mothers of my children; and as such, it only seemed fair to have in place certain minimum standards befitting such a Woman.

No want’s to be seen having sex with the hottie retard. That’s obvious.

What isn’t obvious to Lisa is that there is a difference in ranking systems. We both value honesty and maturity and kindness and empathy. That goes without saying. Men get hard first tits, women for wallet. It’s been said a million times. It’s trite. It’s just irritating when the obvious becomes a conversation point.

If I understand your meaning of Beta as not educated and not career driven, then I disagree.

All women are keenly aware of where they stack of physically compared to other women. They also, deep down, know that physical looks are more attractive to men than degrees, etc. It is the unattached women who are still on the market who are most sensitive. They are more likely to see an attractive woman as a threat. A securely married, if less attractive or less powerful/influential/educated woman will not react the same way as an attractive but very lonely feminist whose personality has driven away potential long time mates.

If Clinton or Obama had married a 10 without an impressive degree and pushy personality neither would have won the presidency.

“When asked why I had the criteria I do elsewhere on the Internet, my reply was that I viewed all the Women I dealt with, no matter in what way, as potential mothers of my children; and as such, it only seemed fair to have in place certain minimum standards befitting such a Woman.”

I agree – intelligence is very important. Looks, intelligence and grace. I wouldn’t rate education as particularly important though.

Most people are overeducated these days. Personally, I wish I had gone straight to work. College didn’t help me prepare for work hardly at all, and I read more history now then I did at school, which was basically just a long vacation in between summer internships.

Ya, I never went to college. Meditated in Buddhist retreat centers and monasteries and forests instead. And then became an entrepreneur. Did some travelling sales at universities to get the fix of chatting with college girls.

27-year-old Married Woman admitted:
The handle is as much a joke as anything– I’m 27. But married now for six years, so sometimes I feel old. 😉

Your husband might as well get the divorce over now. It’s not like you won’t do it eventually. Hopefully he doesn’t have kids with you yet.

27-year-old Married Woman editted:
Sigh. Nothing sadder to see than an angry little man on the internet.

But I do think both partners have to keep their heads in the game in order to successfully remain married these days.

What is horrifying about that?

No-fault divorce is an unpleasant fact of life. Wishing it away doesn’t help, though.

End backpedaling

So now No-fault divorce is unpleasant? I thought you had trouble ‘mustering sympathy for divorcees’?

Men shouldn’t ‘wish’ for ‘No-fault’ divorce to be different? It benefits women, and that’s it. Men need to shut up. Right?

However, I agree there is one type of ‘divorcee’ that I have trouble feeling sympathy for. The husband is the one that loses custody of his children, and he is the one forced to give money to the wife, to spend in whatever way she wants. Because of this, dear woman, if you don’t want to feel sympathy for the ex-wife, that’s fine.

Marred woman said:
I cannot get fat and hairy and frumpy and then be “surprised” if he takes a shine to some cute young thing at work, either, right?

Once you get over your surprise, I’m sure you’ll enjoy taking him for whatever he is worth.

Sweetheart, it’s okay; I know it’s comforting to paint everyone here with one big brush. I won’t take it personally.

I do think you missed the point though. Lisa said that if you marry a girl from a low-class background, “your daughters will be low class/skanks/barflys” and implied that if you marry a girl from a high-class background, this won’t be the case.

I pointed out that most of the skanks/barflys that these bloggers bed come from middle and upper class backgrounds, not lower-class backgrounds.

You don’t have to preach to me about hard living in the city while you try to make it. I was a (relatively) broke kid in New York for a year putting in my dues at work.

“No, I said: they don’t stay in the lower economic class for long. They get out. And the ‘princesses’ with no manners or class had low social class mothers who failed to raise them correctly. One of the hazards of marrying a woman based on her looks alone [as opposed to her other attributes including social class] – your daughters will be low class/skanks/barflys no matter how much money you earn.”

Stunning point. One look at the current line up of celubutards is solid proof.

Lisa said that if you marry a girl from a low-class background, “your daughters will be low class/skanks/barflys”

In theory, if your wife is low class because she’s low IQ, then it’s pretty likely that your children will be low class and low IQ too. This is why my scheme to marry any high-IQ Jewish woman is probably a failure in the long-term.

“So no matter what, if you only consider looks, your children will always turn out badly? You’re trying too hard.”

No, if you only consider looks you will have to rely on luck for the other attributes – which are just as important – for which you should have screened: intelligence being number two after looks.”

Another home run. This explains why in a competitive world many European royals look like morons. The importance of born advantage is rapidly being eroded by commoners with lots of more with more intelligence.

However it is doubtful if most intelligent women are screen for intelligence also. It would appear many are gaming their economic status to get the guys they could not get in High School, or a man with more money or status irrespective of intelligence. I would say both sexes are doing the same things.

Anonymous
Comment-do-it – you come across as bitter and humorless and lacking in anything novel to say. Just empty and cold and smelling of brussel sprouts.

Yet I possess the remarkable ability to believe a nasty woman when she says, straight out, that she is a nasty woman. Granted, women are sometimes stupidly hard on themselves, but Princess doesn’t really seem the type.

Married Woman DID say:
As to divorce, I honestly have a hard time mustering up a lot of sorrow for divorcees, broadly speaking. Marriage is purely a voluntary business these days, both when you first get in and then every day after that.

Both of you have to earn each other’s love and loyalty every day of the week, and when you fail to do this effectively, you open yourself up to a lot of heartache.

The handle is as much a joke as anything– I’m 27. But married now for six years, so sometimes I feel old. 😉

Initial attraction has worn off, and she has zero loyalty to marriage.

If her husband isn’t rock-solid game, then she will divorce him. And I’d like to note she is at a pick-up artists site.

I’m feeling pretty confident on my guess of “divorce husband’. I’m wrong sometimes, but really, how likely is it that she’ll stay with him?

oh, dear– have you really never heard happily married people joke about it?

Especially to soften the “smug married” aspect of it in a roomful of rather obviously embittered singles?

I got here via Clio’s site, and am always fascinated by the human drama– the spurnings, the snobbery, the unlikely bedfellows and twisted grabs for power. The agony! The poetry! The ecstasy!

And within the Mating Game are all those elements in their most deliciously primal form.

While I’m personally glad to have gotten out while I was still ahead– marrying young is a Very Good Thing for a woman, no doubt, and I married very well for myself– I still enjoy the whole bloody spectacle from the sidelines. 😉

But if must be angry at someone, I suppose it can be me. What difference can it make?

Also, it provides some excellent (if often brutal) insight into the art of keeping a husband happy.

It’s easy for women to forget that the same things that attracted our husbands to us in the first place are the same things that keep them from wandering later– we must do the best we can to keep those assets shored up even as we bravely face their constant decline.

men who have bedded a lot of women are *more* attractive to women, not less, because of the nature of women’s desire

Question: For the women who agree with this^^^, are Leo Dicaprio and Mick Jagger attractive to you?

Uhhh…NO. Neither is my ex whom I was insanely in love with as because he’s proven himself to be a male version of a whore. When I think of the women he’s banged since me it makes me shudder to think of his cock inside me again. Yes, in some women’s opinion they do exist contrary to your beliefs.

anonthat’s fine and dandy, but why the klingon aspect? to appeal to star trek fans? he could have gotten dark skinned, authentically black, working-class and educated without going extraterrestrial. he could have gotten a hottie like kenya moore.http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b199/ChUuK/kenya_moore.jpg

Kenya’s nipples are unbelievable in that pic. I know some guys who would suck for days on those things.

times are changing, women want to explore sexuality as much as men do. i think a woman can have a fair bit of sex in her life and not be a slut… most women nowdays have and some a re exceptionally good partners.